Grey Acumen:
"Arguing against the existence..."
The better safe than sorry does not prove gods existence
"Man, by nature is imperfect, but must also strive towards perfection."
Que, by what standards?
"God is no longer a source of perfection and man loses a critical incorruptible role model that is necessary for society to flourish."
Nietzsche discusses this, Habermas and Foucault too. I don't think any one of those guys believe(ed) in god, but they are discussing the need to anchor morals, ideas and ideals to absolutes. Postmetaphysical approaches are about this kind of issues, but it shows not that god is needed in anoher way than as guidance.
"So on one side, you have the fact that God does exist, and thus it should be accepted that he exists, and on the other side, whether god exists or not he NEEDS to exist, and thus is should be accepted that he exists."
There are no evidence that he exists, and there is no way to disprove his existence, so the discussion about god existense is from a popperian perspective not science at all, since it's nothing that you can falsify.
Beware, I live!
I am Sinistar!
Beware, coward!
I hunger!
Roaaaaaaaaaar!
